Delete my content and posts
1 Like
The Chinese Agama texts are certainly not Mahayana and Theravada. But they belong to the early Buddhist texts. The website, suttacentral, obviously is for all the relevant early Buddhist texts. It is certainly very useful website for studies in Early Buddhism (not just Theravada)!
4 Likes
In the SN.40.9. AnimittapaƱhÄsuttaį¹, there is a term āanimittaį¹ cetosamÄdhiį¹ā.
What is the signless immersion of the heart?
Katamo nu kho animitto cetosamÄdhÄ«ti?
It occurred to me:
Tassa mayhaį¹, Ävuso, etadahosi:
āItās when a mendicant, not focusing on any signs, enters and remains in the signless immersion of the heart.
āidha bhikkhu sabbanimittÄnaį¹ amanasikÄrÄ animittaį¹ cetosamÄdhiį¹ upasampajja viharati.
This is called the signless immersion of the heart.ā
Ayaį¹ vuccati animitto cetosamÄdhÄ«āti.
https://suttacentral.net/sn40.9/en/sujato
In the SN 41.7 Godattasuttaį¹, there is a term āanimittÄ cetovimuttiā.
And what is the signless heartās release?
KatamÄ ca, bhante, animittÄ cetovimutti?
Itās when a mendicant, not focusing on any signs, enters and remains in the signless immersion of the heart.
Idha, bhante, bhikkhu sabbanimittÄnaį¹ amanasikÄrÄ animittaį¹ cetosamÄdhiį¹ upasampajja viharati.
This is called the signless heartās release.
Ayaį¹ vuccati, bhante, animittÄ cetovimutti.
https://suttacentral.net/sn41.7/en/sujato
If these two are the same, why not appamÄį¹a ceto?
I think if we donāt know what does the commentary mean when it annotates something, itās difficult to infer what the annotation means.
======= update ========
In the AN 5.27, it seems appamÄį¹aį¹ just mean an attribute of SamÄdhi.
āMendicants, develop limitless immersion, alert and mindful.
āSamÄdhiį¹, bhikkhave, bhÄvetha appamÄį¹aį¹ nipakÄ patissatÄ.
Please do not use such rude language on this forum.
The book referred to clearly says āThe notion of emptiness in early Buddhismā and is a study of parallel texts in Pali and Chinese. It has nothing to do with Mahayana. I would encourage you to familiarize yourself with the fundamental tenets of the study of early Buddhism. We have a number of essays on the topic on SC.
https://suttacentral.net/introduction
Nevertheless, the study of emptiness is a perfectly valid field of study, and if someone wants to look at the early texts in the light of Mahayana they are most welcome, just as they are welcome to look at it in the light of the Theravada commentaries. The different traditions of Buddhism all have their value, and we have much to learn from all of them. But without understanding the fundamentals of early Buddhism, we are likely to fall into the trap of sectarian identity and fundamentalism.
13 Likes
Are there sanskrit early buddhist texts?
Delete my content and posts
1 Like
Could you tell us what are Mahayana definitions of emptiness, which you consider āaccording to Theravada, Mahayana definitions of emptiness are complete nonsense.ā?
1 Like
āAccording to Theravada, Mahayana definitions of emptiness are complete nonsense.ā
edit: Also, really? Do we really need this kind of attitude in Western Buddhism right now? Do we really want to continue the sectarianism of the past as we seek to bring Buddhism to the rest of the world?
Jeez. 
7 Likes
Yes, e.g. the twenty-five Sanskrit sutras edited by Chandrabhal Tripathi correspond to the Chinese SA 283-303 and SA 343-346. The relevant Pali texts are in the Nidana Samyutta. See The Fundamental Teachings of Early Buddhism (by Choong Mun-keat), p. 150, n. 3.
3 Likes
This venerable isnāt speaking nonsense, just an unpopular opinion. There is a huge push to claim that both vehicles teach the āsameā emptiness, but there are also equally valid claims within each tradition, MahÄyÄna and TheravÄda, that two different emptinesses are taught.
7 Likes
Iāve not read this particular book:
But since the Amazon blurb says:
This book investigates the teachings of emptiness in early Buddhism, as recorded in the Pali and Chinese version of the early Buddhist canon. ā¦
Iām not sure why it is assumed to be a specifically Mahayana interpretation. Surely such comparisons are what this site is aboutā¦
2 Likes
Delete my content and posts
2 Likes
Delete my content and posts
If you want to retract your previous statement, thatās cool. But I will remind you that you did not merely state that there is a difference between how emptiness is explained in Mahayana vs Theravada.
Instead, what you did say is: āAccording to Theravada, Mahayana definitions of emptiness are complete nonsense.ā
This is pretty insulting, since it claims that a large proportion of modern Buddhists are teaching nonsense. If you are going to be throwing around such insults, please be prepared to back them up.
2 Likes
Delete my content and posts
Indeed debate is a good thing when done skillfully 
But this means providing reasoning with examples or citations rather than just opinion. It also requires that criticism is aimed at ideas and not individuals, and that care is taken to avoid harsh expression. The basic idea of constructive debate about EBT issues is encouraged within the framework of Right Speech as taught by the Buddha and as outlined in our guidelines.
3 Likes
it is good the Theravada can be preserved as it is. And also the Mahayana by its own side. In this sense, a healthy āfoundamentalismā itās a good thing.
Emptiness notion in Mahayana is different from Theravada. In Mahayana, there is a different historical evolution of ideas and practices, from the Prajnaparamita literature to Asvagosha and endless other things. There are tons of books and stuff available to check that difference. Mahayana emptiness is a distinctive thing which should be understood inside its own historical evolution. Theravada words on Mahayana emptiness notion always sounds unsatisfactory, and the same happens regarding Mahayana words about Theravada notions. Thatās normal because are two different things.
About āWestern Buddhismā, these classifications only get its real sense in Historical terms after an enough evolution. Today, the Western Buddhism mainly exists like an academic and literary artifact. We lack of enough Historical time to profile a distinctive āWestern Buddhismā. And anyone can check today we have low-cost travel and Internet. It is quite possible that no real āWestern Buddhhismā will exist because itās too late for that.
One shouldnāt be excessively concerned to āadaptā Buddhism depending of contemporary social beliefs. Teaching of the Buddha is ācome and seeā. Some people will come, the most no. Only few people is able to feel attraction for the depth of Dhamma teaching. This is no news. From the beguinning it was in that way.
Dhamma lacks of any evolutionary purpose. Buddhism is not a biological theory neither an evangelical protestantism to save the world or a political tool to build a Promise Land over corpses. Dhamma is a Path for the person, to pursue freedom in the founaments of the same existence. This is difficult to see and difficult to accept. Not for the many. As always it was.
4 Likes
Respecting and exploring the differences between Mahayana and Theravada views is a good thing.
Stating outright that fellow Buddhistsā views are ānonsenseā is something else altogether.
Do you see anyone here arguing that Mahayana and Theravada views are the same? I sure donāt.
2 Likes
friend, one should expect Theravada teachings from Theravada monks. And the rejection of other views is a normal thing. If we want to add thoughts it will be just kamma.
Look inside Suttas and we will find similar things:
āPotthapada, all those wanderers are blind and have no eyes.ā
DN 9
Perhaps those fellow wanderers felt offense if they knew that conversation?
I wonder if this can be related with a better meaning for the word respect, which is not political correction.
A clearer example: in this board we say many times the Theism is a non-sense. Thatās not bad because we remember basics of Dhamma using other teachings as a reference. If some theist person read this and he feel offense, it would be his own problem. Obviously we are not going to theists places to claim they are in a non-sense. Because we are respectful.
However, this is a Theravada place. If here somebody says that from a Theravada perspective, a Mahayana notion or another itās a non-sense, I wonder where is the strange thing. It is just a normal affirmation of the own teaching in a proper place.
Myself I have a Mahayana background more than 10 years and still I keep high respect for some things. I cannot see any strange thing reading these words in a Theravada place. This is not an interbuddhist or interreligious space, I believe. Every situation has a context 
I donāt wish to break this thread on translations because this issue. There is a thread which can be more related with this:
https://discourse.suttacentral.net/t/why-do-some-monks-fight-or-disrespect-other-monks/
3 Likes
Are you sure? I think is forum is trying to be a nonsectarian exploration of EBTs outside of two modern innovative traditions, TheravÄda and MahÄyÄna.
5 Likes